So I'm going through UUpdates looking at the titles of different posts, and since I try to read the ones written by UU seminarians I was intrigued by the title "A UU Seminarian in Bibleland 2."
I knew things were not going to go well for me when I read the first paragraph:
So, another issue with being a UU Seminarian in Bibleland is that I'm listening to the rhetoric, and reading the Bible, but being a UU, I introduce reasoning into the mix, unfettered by the need to have everything neatly equal Jesus is Lord and the Bible is Inerrant.
Ah yes, UU sanctimony at its best. "I introduce reasoning into the mix," this seminarian says; as if the other members of that class are just blind followers and don't use reason. UUs don't hold the market on reason. I know many reasonable people who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.
I know what many of you dear readers are thinking---Real Anonymous, this seminarian didn't mean it the way you're reading it. You're right, this seminarian probably didn't mean it the way I read it. But it was said. We UUs aren't the only ones who reason. And just because others reason out something else, doesn't mean we should assume that our reasoning is the best.
Sanctimony doesn't serve us well. While most of us don't believe that Jesus is Lord or that the Bible is inerrant, there is much to learn from those in the other side. I hope this seminarian is really taking advantage of the blessing they have in being a UU in Bibleland.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Began a response, but it grew too long, so it's posted here.
Being anonymous gives you the power to make no sense? This is not at all what I get from reading Lizard Eater's blog. I sense great respect, real efforts to understand the view of others of many different views, and a I see a genuine search for truth. Never have I felt any sanctimony. Not once.
RA, if you're going to tear someone apart for something they said in a blog post, it's only good manners to include a link to what you're talking about.
That said, I find your reaction to Lizard Eater's post to be way more sanctimonious than the phrase you take issue with. Have you spent any time in an educational environment with religious literalists lately?
If you think that's sanctimonious Real Anonymous you should read or watch UUA Presidential candidate Rev. Peter Morales' "stump speech" in which he dismissed Judaism, Christianity and Islam, to say nothing of other world religions. . . as "obsolete religions, created for another time" that "contribute to the darkness" of prejudice, hatred, injustice and ignorance etc. etc.
The WDC is mottifyi which *I* interpret as a synthesis of motif, FYI and, throwing an 'r' in there for good measure, mortify. :-)
I was having such a good time on blog furlough. Then your first post in three weeks was for the purposes of name calling Lizard Eater.
I wonder about your self control or awareness of the surroundings, context, or lives of those you choose to leap upon in judgmentalism in this blog?
Just because you are anonymous and speak your thoughts randomly into the ether (as do I) you are not relieved of the obligation to be, dare I say, UU about it.
You stated that you knew things were not going to go well for you when you read the first paragraph. To my reading, this is simply a way to say that you decided what she meant before actually finishing the post she wrote.
You were able to assume that your "dear readers" had some grace to consider that she might not mean it the way you were reading it. I wonder why you weren't willing or able to grant the same grace? You could have chosen to ask a clarifying question or two in the comments section of her blog instead of writing a special post targeting her on your own blog.
Finally, you accuse Lizard Eater of "Sanctimoniousness" -- a hypocritical show of piety, devotion or righteousness...
I don't believe that's actually the right word for what you're accusing her of.
But I bet it's a really fun, powerful word to toss.
Kind of like "Grenade."
~Cranky
Amen Cranky!! Amen.
I don't see the need to add to the pile on with additional snark, but yeah, I agree with the sentiments expressed in the comments so far.
CC
Woo hoo Cranky Cindy!
U*U Go Girl!
Talk about the cranky old pot calling the fashionably late tea kettle black. . .
I wonder about *your* self control or awareness of the surroundings, context, or lives of those you choose to leap upon in judgmentalism in this blog?
Just because you are anonymous and speak your thoughts randomly into the ether (as I do not. . .) you are not relieved of the obligation to be, dare I say, an U*U about it.
ROTFLMU*UO!
I must say that is has been, and still is. . . absolutely boatloads of fun being *The* Transcendentalist Super Hero dreaded U*U World-wide as The Emerson Avenger aka The *Real* U*U Enforcer. I really must thank you for passing me *that* U*U ammunition over three years ago now. . .
Actually, if I wanted to be U*Ultra-picky, I would say that sanctimonious-ness and/or sanctimony may not be the most accurate description of Lizard Eater's words, but there is a definite air of superiority to them. An air of self-satisfied, self-congratulatory, smugness that is all too typical of U*Us. *The* Thesaurus provides the following additional synonyms that *I* believe are quite applicable to Lizard Eater's words -
complacent, conceited, egoistic, egotistical, holier-than-thou*, pompous, puffed-up, self-contented, self-righteous, snobbish, stuck on oneself, stuck-up*, superior, vainglorious
Take U*Ur pick. . .
Interestingly enough the WVC is dingspit.
I expect it has something to do with U*Us spitting into the wind, to say nothing of tugging on the cape of that Transcendentalist Super Hero, the Dark Knight of the benighted U*U World, *The* dreaded Emerson Avenger. Oh dear. . . perhaps I am being just a tad vainglorious myself here. :-)
* = informal/non-formal usage
Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition
Copyright © 2009 by the Philip Lief Group.
Oops! It looks like I "messed up" and linked to the wrong Jim Croce song. . . I meant to link to this one of course.
I also forgot to mention that I am absolutely chuffed to see that *The* ChaliceChick Ü*Über-Blogger agrees with the sentiments expressed in my comment about UUA Presidential candidate Rev. Peter Morales' apparent U*U style sanctimonious-ness. :-)
Here is the follow-up comment that I just posted to Lizard Eater's 'Sanctimony' thread which is her response to your post TRA -
LE The Real Anonymous clearly says in his and/or her post about your *apparent* "sanctimonious-ness" -
I know what many of you dear readers are thinking---Real Anonymous, this seminarian didn't mean it the way you're reading it. You're right, this seminarian probably didn't mean it the way I read it. But it was said.
In religion, as in politics, *appearances* are everything. Regardless of whether or not you actually were being sanctimonious, or any of the other adjectives that can be justifiably applied to what you said, your words come across as having an air of holier-than-thou, or at least reasonier-than-thou. . . sU*Uperiority to them. I have witnessed rather too much similar "sanctimony" on the part of U*Us either in U*U "churches" or online. RA was simply using your words to speak out about something that is all too common in the self-described "Uncommon Denomination". Come to think of it, the UUA's "Uncommon Denomination" marketing slogan is just a tad conceited, egoistic, holier-than-thou, pompous, puffed-up, self-contented, self-righteous, snobbish, stuck on oneself, stuck-up, superior, vainglorious don't U*Us think?
I went back and read the Peter Morales talk that Robin Edgar referred to. I do not think that Rev. Morales said anything unusual in the context of a UU environment. That is the way many UUs see the other religions, so just get used to it.
Best wishes
Dudley M. Jones
jonesdudley@hotmail.com
I really don't think they were well-chosen words at all. I don't think they are typical, but even if they are, they certainly aren't something we should be aspiring to and I'd like a UUA president who sets a good example.
I'm not sure why Robin is so surprised that I agree with his critique of Morales. I've been a Hallman supporter for years at this point partially because Morales seems like he wants to follow in Sinkford's "think as I do or hit the road" philosophical footsteps while I think Hallman has more of a commitment to working with people who don't think the same way she does.
CC
CC,
"Chuffed" means pleased aka happy. I was not "surprised" that you agree with me regarding Peter Morales words just self-satisfied aka "preening" like when I made the cover of the UU World magazine recently. :-)
BTW You *may* have also misread Dudley's words as you will see by the following response to them. . . :-)
Dudley, I couldn't agree more. Rev. Peter Morales did not say anything unusual in the context of a U*U environment. *That* is indeed the way many U*Us see the other "obsolete" religions which serve only to "contribute to the darkness" of prejudice, hatred, injustice and ignorance etc. etc. . I am in fact "used to it", more than you might imagine. . . I just don't like it very much and I am trying to change it by exposing it and denouncing it. . .
Post a Comment